The Confusion as to the True Nature of Islamic Government
"Intellectuals are inclined ever more towards democracy. They love Islam but are afraid of theocratic rule. They view democracy not as an alternative to Islam, but genuinely believe that as a political philosophy, it is the Holy Quran itself which propounds democracy."

It is becoming popular among Muslim political thinkers of the contemporary age to claim that Islam stands for democracy. According to their political philosophy, God being the ultimate authority, sovereignty belongs to Him.

Divine authority Absolute sovereignty belongs to God. The Holy Quran sums up His domain in the following verse:

Then exalted be Allah, the True King. There is no god but He, the Lord of the Glorious Throne. (Ch.23 Al-Mu'minum:117)

The fundamental principle, that ultimately all rights to government belong to God and He is the Lord of Sovereignty, is mentioned in different ways in the Holy Quran of which the above verse is but one example.

In the running of political affairs, God's sovereignty is expressed in two ways:

The law (sharia) as derived from the holy Quran, the conduct of the Holy Prophet of Islam and also from the established traditions attributed to him by early Muslims are supreme. They bear essential guidelines for legislation with the express Will of God.

b) No legislative process would be valid in contradiction of the aforesaid principle.

Unfortunately, however, there is no unanimity among the scholars of various sects of Islam as to what are the clear cut Laws (Shariah). On this, all the scholars are agreed that legislation is the prerogative of God and that He has expressed His Will through the Quranic revelation to the Holy Founder of Islam.

Regarding the manner in which Muslim governments should be run, the popular idea is that in the day to day administrative matters, affairs and measures, the government, as representatives of the people, becomes instrumental in the expression of God's Will. As sovereignty belongs to the people by way of delegated power, therefore, such a system is democratic.

Mullahism
This is the rigid view of the so-called orthodoxy who would come to an understanding with the modern democratic tendencies of the Muslim populace only on the condition that the Mullah (nearest translation Muslim "clergy") be granted the ultimate right to judge the validity of democratic decisions on the basis of Shariah.

If accepted, this demand would be tantamount to placing ultimate legislative authority not in the hands of God but in the hands of the orthodox or some other school of clergy. When you consider the awesome power placed in their hands in the background of fundamental differences prevailing among the Muslims clergy itself regarding their understanding of what is and what is not Shariah, the consequences appear horrendous. There are so many schools of jurisprudence among the orthodoxy. Even within each school of jurisprudence, the clergy is not always unanimous on every edict. Again, their position regarding what the actual Will of God as expressed in Islamic Shariah is has been changing in different periods of history. This presents a complex problem to the contemporary world of Islam which still seems to be in search of its true identity. It is gradually becoming more apparent to Muslim intellectuals that the only meeting point amongst the clergy is their uncompromising demand for the enforcement of Shariah.

The Iranian revolution has further whetted the appetite of the Mullah in countries where Sunni Muslims are a majority. According to them, if Khomeini can succeed, why must they fail? Beyond this lies their fantasia - the land of their dreams.

The masses are confused. Would you prefer the Word of God and that of the Holy Prophet of Islam or would you rather have men under a godless and fearless society to guide and shape your political manifestos? This question is extremely difficult for a common person, who finds himself in a state of bewilderment and confusion. The masses in many Muslim countries adore Islam and would readily die for the Will of God and the honour of the Holy Prophet of Islam, may peace and blessings of Allah be upon him. Yet there is something within the whole scenario which leaves them confused, disturbed and very uneasy. Despite their love of God and that of the Holy Prophet, it invokes many a bloody memory of governments in the past which were either under the influence of Mullahs or exploited Mullahism to their political advantage. As for the Muslim politicians, they seem to be divided and indecisive. Some cannot resist exploiting this situation by siding with the Mullah and patronising them. They cherish the secret hope, however, that at the time of elections, it will not be the Mullah but they who will be elected as stalwart champions of Shariah. The masses would prefer to trust them more as guardians of Shariah than the Mullah. Life would be easier and more down to earth in their hands than under the stiff and uncompromising control of the "custodians of heaven". Most scrupulous amongst the politicians are the foresighted ones who consider this to be a dangerous game. Alas! They are fast turning into a minority. Politics and hypocrisy and truth and scruples, or for that matter any noble virtue, do not seem to go hand in hand. By and large, the intellectuals are inclined ever more towards democracy. They love Islam but are afraid of theocratic rule. They view democracy not as an alternative to Islam, but genuinely believe that as a political philosophy, it is the Holy Quran itself which propounds democracy:

Those who hearken to their Lord, and observe Prayer, and whose affairs are decided by mutual consultation, and who spend out of what we have provided for them. (Ch. 42 Al-Shura:39) And consult them in matters of administration; and when thou art determined, then put thy trust wholly in Allah. Surely, Allah loves those who put their trust in Him. (Ch: 3: Al-Imran: 160) As a net result of this tug of war between various factions, young Muslim countries, like Pakistan, find themselves in a rigmarole of confusion and contradiction. The electorate is temperamentally averse to the return of the Mullah to the constituent assemblies in any sizeable number. Even at the height of Shariah fever, hardly five to ten percent of the Mullahs succeed in winning elections. Yet, having committed themselves to the Law of God in return for additional support from the Mullah, the politicians find themselves in a very unenviable position.

Deep within, they are fully convinced that the acceptance of Shariah is in reality paradoxical to the principle of legislature through a democratically elected house of representatives. If the authority for legislation lies with God, which a Muslim cannot deny, then, as a logical consequence, it is the divines and the Mullahs who possess the prerogative of understanding and defining the law of Shariah. In this scenario, the whole exercise of electing legislative bodies would become futile and meaningless.

After all, members of Parliament are not required to sign only on the dotted lines where the Mullah so indicates. It is rather tragic that neither the politician nor the intellectual has ever genuinely attempted to understand the form or forms of government which the Holy Quran really propounds or recognises.

This article originally appeared in The Independent newspaper published in Banjul, the Gambia, West Africa on September 28, 2001.  No writer was credited.